Page 1 of 4

AACW 1.045 Public Beta Patch (Divisional HQ Removal)

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:39 pm
by Pocus
Dear Players,

We are almost finished in the refactoring of the handling of divisions.

As expressed in various posts, we have indeed decided to remove divisional HQs from the game, with leaders being now mandatory to form up a division.

The main points of interests in this decision were:

a) Streamlined command structure, while retaining the same logic has before (ie you still have armies, corps and divisions).

b) A better AI, far more capable of dealing with the new rule (this beta patch features this AI, and Athena efficiency has improved by several notches just because of that.)

c) Less micro-managing.

If you are interested in helping us put the finishing touches on this rework, here is the patch:

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/patch_AACW_v1.045_beta.zip

Things to do:

First copy your regular AACW game directory, and apply the patch on it, so you can have both versions at the same time (the regular and this beta one).

There are only the 2 tutorials and 3 campaigns updated to this new rule (Both 61 campaigns and the 62 one).

It works only for the english language (if you are french and want to test, revert temporarly to English while you test this patch).


As this is a beta patch, you can get bugs. Please report them as usual to me. Be on the lookout for something weird regarding the new rule, although our internal tests showed that it worked fine, AI included.


Now the new game rule, how it works:

To form a division, you need an activated general. First, you select the desired general, and click on the 'Enable Divisional Command' button (second panel of the Special Orders panels), showing a tent and a guy before it. If the button is disabled, pass the mouse over, you will get the explainations why.

You have also a restriction on the number of divisions you can have on the field at the same time. The max number is 48 for USA and 24 for CSA, except in April 61 where you don't have your full potential (but it will rises as monthes pass). You can know how many divisions are on the field and how you are allowed by passing the mouse over the 'Enable Divisional Command' button (of a general capable of receiving the order).

When you click on this button, the General get a silver stripe. It means he is now able to form a division. This privilege has an administrative cost of 10 money, 5 war supplies and one conscript company (lack of assets can then prevent you from giving this order). Also, the turn the general get this order, he is suffering from a -2/-2-1 penalty to his ratings, so beware!

When you have your general ready, gather the units as usual with the (+) button, the same rules as before apply (ie you can have up to 18 elements, and such).

Voila, it is done!

Now, some precisions:

a) The turn after the general get his order, the penalties are lost.

b) If the general remains alone, without units under his direct command, he will reverts automatically to a general without the privilege of forming up the division. This is intended and normal, as an anti-exploit rule.

c) You will pay the cost only if your general has the order during hosting, meaning you can change your mind at will during a turn. You can even revoke the order (from a general having the privilege since some turns) and then restore the leader to his former privilege without any problem or cost: it is entirely reversible for you. Manipulate, experiment thus!

d) The administrative cost, is never paid back (death and taxes... no one can avoid them ;) ). This is intended.

For whose willing to help, thanks you much for your efforts.

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:02 pm
by McNaughton
Just a few slight things.

#1. The graphics for all generals who don't have an official picture is no longer the blackened face with a question mark, but, the old Divisional HQ Graphic. Is this a WAD?

#2. In the 1861 scenario I can easily improve the Confederate forces by creating divisions. Maybe divisions should not be allowed for the Confederates until 1862, as this tended to be the case historically (union had divisions in 1861, Confederates used brigades), or, is this for AI improvement?

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:01 am
by jimwinsor
How compatible will this patch be for current games?

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:26 am
by oldspec4
[quote="McNaughton"]Just a few slight things.

#1. The graphics for all generals who don't have an official picture is no longer the blackened face with a question mark, but, the old Divisional HQ Graphic. Is this a WAD?

Also, when I enable N. Lyons (has an official picture) for Divisional Command and then combine units into the Division, the picture of the Division is the West BDE, not Lyons. Also tried this w/ Hooker (another official picture) and other units w/ the same result, i.e., the unit is shown, not the Divisional Commander.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:39 am
by will b
I used JC Fremont to create a division in Missouri and when the event removing him from command occured the whole stack disappered as well.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:41 am
by runyan99
will b wrote:I used JC Fremont to create a division in Missouri and when the event removing him from command occured the whole stack disappered as well.


This bug has been reported and reported again, and yet the bug persists.

I really think it is time for AGEOD to buckle down and fix this issue, in all of its many forms and instances, or else just cut out all the events which remove leaders and units from the game.

Personally I am for removing the troublesome events. Fremont's in particular is an unessassary event, because while he was removed in '61, Lincoln reinstated him to a command in West Virginia in '62.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:19 am
by Pocus
McNaughton wrote:Just a few slight things.

#1. The graphics for all generals who don't have an official picture is no longer the blackened face with a question mark, but, the old Divisional HQ Graphic. Is this a WAD?

#2. In the 1861 scenario I can easily improve the Confederate forces by creating divisions. Maybe divisions should not be allowed for the Confederates until 1862, as this tended to be the case historically (union had divisions in 1861, Confederates used brigades), or, is this for AI improvement?


1. is WAD

2. is under examination, we know this is not quite historical but we have to do some researches on the nb of divisions per year.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:20 am
by Pocus
jimwinsor wrote:How compatible will this patch be for current games?


for now the patch is not officially compatible, but I took some measure when developing the new system, so hopefully this will be possible to continue older saves.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:21 am
by Pocus
oldspec4 wrote:
McNaughton wrote:Just a few slight things.

#1. The graphics for all generals who don't have an official picture is no longer the blackened face with a question mark, but, the old Divisional HQ Graphic. Is this a WAD?

Also, when I enable N. Lyons (has an official picture) for Divisional Command and then combine units into the Division, the picture of the Division is the West BDE, not Lyons. Also tried this w/ Hooker (another official picture) and other units w/ the same result, i.e., the unit is shown, not the Divisional Commander.


strange. If you merge a leader into a brigade without enabling DC, then it is normal to have the brigade portrait (every infantry brigade can accept a leader in such way), but if you enable DC before, you should see the general portrait. Do you have a screenie?

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:21 am
by Pocus
will b wrote:I used JC Fremont to create a division in Missouri and when the event removing him from command occured the whole stack disappered as well.


Yes this is a problem we still have, we will either do as Runyan suggest, or upgrade completely the way leader can be removed by scripted events.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:02 am
by oldspec4
Pocus wrote:
oldspec4 wrote:
strange. If you merge a leader into a brigade without enabling DC, then it is normal to have the brigade portrait (every infantry brigade can accept a leader in such way), but if you enable DC before, you should see the general portrait. Do you have a screenie?


Yeah...I tried again this morning to see if I missed something in the process, but same result. I enabled DC and then combined units w/ the commander. The picture goes from the commander to the unit. Will try to get a screenie to you.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:23 am
by richfed
It really does seem to move along nicely ...

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:48 pm
by oldspec4
oldspec4 wrote:
Pocus wrote:
Yeah...I tried again this morning to see if I missed something in the process, but same result. I enabled DC and then combined units w/ the commander. The picture goes from the commander to the unit. Will try to get a screenie to you.


Pocus,

Screenie attached

[ATTACH]647[/ATTACH]

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:01 pm
by Makhno
Hi, sorry but how "revert in english" (use AACW in french)? Try to find out some clue in the forum and the manual, no luck or bad eyes....
cheers
edit: bad eyes indeed.... :siffle: thks anyway....

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:53 pm
by runyan99
Pocus wrote:Yes this is a problem we still have, we will either do as Runyan suggest, or upgrade completely the way leader can be removed by scripted events.


Another option instead of removing leaders like Fremont, is the event could simply lower their seniority, so that the player can use the leader or not, but the leader won't be a problem to bypass for commands.

By the way, will someone define WAD for me?

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:11 pm
by Peever
runyan99 wrote:By the way, will someone define WAD for me?


I believe it means "working as designed".

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:13 pm
by veji1
I have had several times the issue where I enable a general to create a division, create a division on the same turn by adding some troops to the general, and then by the next turn it isn't a division anymore, but a general with troops embedded in it (like when a general is with a brigade...). I will try to wait to enable the general one turn and then wait another turn before adding troops, in case it is a delay issue (if wad, it should be documented), otherwise there is a bug...

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:41 pm
by runyan99
veji1 wrote:I have had several times the issue where I enable a general to create a division, create a division on the same turn by adding some troops to the general, and then by the next turn it isn't a division anymore, but a general with troops embedded in it (like when a general is with a brigade...). I will try to wait to enable the general one turn and then wait another turn before adding troops, in case it is a delay issue (if wad, it should be documented), otherwise there is a bug...


I encountered that quickly also, and sent Pocus a file.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:59 pm
by LAVA
Well...

Shouldn't a division have a minimum of two brigades?

Ray (aka Lava)

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:26 am
by Stonewall
veji1 wrote:I have had several times the issue where I enable a general to create a division, create a division on the same turn by adding some troops to the general, and then by the next turn it isn't a division anymore, but a general with troops embedded in it (like when a general is with a brigade...). I will try to wait to enable the general one turn and then wait another turn before adding troops, in case it is a delay issue (if wad, it should be documented), otherwise there is a bug...


Not a delay issue. If you create the division on turn 1 and then wait and add troops until turn 2, then the division will have disbanded itself due to nothing being contained therein except the leader.

The division/leader portraits also do not display correctly. They did for the first couple divisions I created, and ever since, even leaders with pics have other units as their portrait. Some canon, infantry, division portraits, etc.

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:31 am
by goodwood
Is it my imagination or is the AI phase running much slower than 1.4a it took 9 minutes for AI to process its thinking stage before going into the supply phase!

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:50 pm
by richfed
Hmmm ... exact oppisite here on Vista - AI is very snappy with this patch.

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:56 pm
by will b
Yes, it's been noticably faster for me too.

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:29 pm
by mike1962
Much faster here to using XP.

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:10 pm
by will b
The RR's that got removed from WVa are still being destroyed by the AI.

Image

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:58 pm
by kentul01
now that ive installed the new patch, i cant get any of the sceniros to start

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:17 am
by goodwood
Remember its only the early 3 campaigns and 2 tutorials that have been converted at this stage ( 1861 Apr & Jul and the 1862)

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:27 am
by runyan99
Would the removal of the division HQs be a good time to take a second look at the generals included in the game at the start?

Since both sides will be able to more quickly form divisions with this new patch, how about eliminating the ahistorical corps commanders who start the April campaign?

That's Holmes and Bonham on the CSA side, and Hunter for the USA. Leave them in the scenario, but start them as brigadiers who are not automatically promoted or promotable. That will be more historical.

A few more comments about the '61 and '62 leaders from the CSA side.

T. Jackson was a brigadier at Bull Run, and should probably start the game as such. Possibly he should be automatically promotable however around the beginning of '62, which would enable him to form a corps and conduct a reenactment of his independent Valley campaign. Or, perhaps not, if forming a large division with another brigadier as second in command is sufficient to reenact the number of troops he had under his command in the Valley.

Incidentally, consider that Jackson as a brigadier means the player needs to keep J. Johnston in Virginia to form a corps under Beauregard. This is good because having some reason to utilize J. Johnston in Virginia in '61 and '62is more historical than the current situation, where Jackson can instantly form his own corps making Johnston superflous.

C. Winder wasn't promoted to brigadier historically until March '62, yet he is included in the '61 brigadiers for some reason. Either make him appear in March '62, or make him part of the '62 brigadiers pool.

Replace C. Winder in the initial OOB with an earlier appearace of R. Ewell. Ewell was a brigadier at Bull Run, but was wounded, which is the only reason he didn't command a division sooner than he did. Include Ewell with the '61 brigadier pool, instead of Winder.

Finally, allowing the CSA to form 6 divisions at all right off the bat in July of '61 isn't historical, but for gameplay reasons I'm willing to set that consideration aside for the time being.

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:52 am
by Pocus
goodwood wrote:Is it my imagination or is the AI phase running much slower than 1.4a it took 9 minutes for AI to process its thinking stage before going into the supply phase!


I will check that, can be the new AI algorithm on divisions creation. In some instances it can be slow perhaps.

I will check the recurring issue about divisions leaders having their command revoked (transformed into leader + brigade).

About leaders additions and tweaks: yes we will do that, as soon as the system by itself is ok. Perhaps next week for example.

About this railroad in Summers, WV: the tooltip still indicate that a railroad is there.

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:05 am
by Korrigan
I think he is speaking of Beverly, where no railroads appear, not Sumner. Something to do with the Database I guess.
My bet would be a game began before 1.04, and a database not edited.